Is China Still Socialist?

This is a very controversial subject among Marxists. Do you believe that the Peoples Republic of China is today a socialist and Marxist country or are the symbols of communism only maintained for the sake of heritage? It would be interesting to discuss this subject. Some have argued that China is making its own way to communism by developing capital. Others have said China is today socialist only in name and has no intention of realising Marxism to its fullest extent. In my opinion China was still socialist in the 1980s but gradually it has moved away from this path. By the late 1990s it seems it was no longer possible to call it a socialist country anymore. Perhaps it can be compared to the Soviet Union which gradually shifted away from fundamental Marxism to a more nominal ideology. When I visited China in the 2000s it did not look like a socialist state. There were symbols of communism but these were only in the background. Whenever I saw them it felt like staring back thirty years rather than looking at anything to do with the present.

i dont think that it is a controversial subject. China is a capitalist country. The character of a country is measured by which class owns the means of production and where power lies. And since the answer isn't the working class, there is no way to consider them as socialist

i dont think that it is a controversial subject. China is a capitalist country. The character of a country is measured by which class owns the means of production and where power lies. And since the answer isn't the working class, there is no way to consider them as socialist

But they will still claim that they are socialist today. I believe there are even some on this website who will defend the PRC as having maintained socialism. In Asia today I have not met anyone who said that they felt China was still ideologically communist. Nearly everyone has said that it has abandoned that path.

China is not purely capitalist. While it has introduced market economics, it still has socialist institutions and policies in place. It has a true "mixed" economy.

Edit: My personal view is that as long as the Communist Party is still in power in China, there remains a chance for current policy to change and for China to reform to a purely Socialist economic model without the need for violence. I think it is much more productive to consider China an ally or at least potential ally rather than an enemy.

China is not purely capitalist. While it has introduced market economics, it still has socialist institutions and policies in place. It has a true "mixed" economy.

Edit: My personal view is that as long as the Communist Party is still in power in China, there remains a chance for current policy to change and for China to reform to a purely Socialist economic model without the need for violence. I think it is much more productive to consider China an ally or at least potential ally rather than an enemy.

There is no such thing as mixed socialism and capitalism. China is bourgeois and imperialist.

The important thing for me is that China hence its history and one party system has the potential to stimulate international revolution. China will most likely pick our side as new socialist powers arise, but they will only do so when the time is right.I have no reason to judge or criticize their internal economic policies even if it creates powerhouses comparable to western bourgeois. Because let's face it, their model blends economic efficiency with social control over capital together in the most effective way we have yet witnessed.

We need to make revolution so our kids wont grow up in corporate prostitutionSky was the limit. Then the communists came!

There is no such thing as mixed socialism and capitalism. China is bourgeois and imperialist.

And you are far too extremist and unwilling to compromise to be useful in achieving any permanent gains. I used to think along similar lines to you and loz, but then I began to grow up. It's time you do as well.

And you are far too extremist and unwilling to compromise to be useful in achieving any permanent gains. I used to think along similar lines to you and loz, but then I began to grow up. It's time you do as well.

There is nothing more extreme I can think of than latching onto a nationalist bourgeois state, for 'permanent gains'. That's a slippery slope you're walking on.

Also there is nothing extreme about pointing out 'mixed economy' is not a mode of production...it's just marxism

And you are far too extremist and unwilling to compromise to be useful in achieving any permanent gains. I used to think along similar lines to you and loz, but then I began to grow up. It's time you do as well.

this way of thinking "revollution,communism, workers' control and power in means of production and society = imature thinking " isn't one of the most common slogans of reformists and oportunists? yes it is... Let's not forget that russia got invaded by 17 countries, including england and germany and managed to survive

It's called dogmatism and unwillingness to move beyond the 1950's, actually.

Where's the dogma? You either have capital or you don't. China has capital, the state itself is one big capitalist, and not to mention, this 'socialism' exists in within the confines of a nationalistic nation-state, AFTER a revolutionary thaw. There is no socialism to be found here.

You're the dogmatist here, you think these 'Communists' and their revisionism are an example for us to follow and deserve our sympathy. Why? For no other reason than the fact these 'Communists' have state power. We could replace the CCP with an 'anti-imperialist' KMT and no doubt you'd still support it, citing the same garbage.

It's funny you mention the 50s because you're just asserting the usual ML positions, and your whole view of the third world stinks of a maoist. You are not a communist, just an anti-western chauvinist.

From what I've read about"socialism with Chinese charecteristics" , it seems to me to resemble corporatism. In a corporative economy, such as existed in Fascist countries, the nationstate is said to control, but not own outright the means of production. Therefore is constitutes a centrally planned private enterprise system, as best I understand it. The only real essential difference I notice between the CCP, and the Nazi Party, is that the CCP has maintained it's socialist faction. But for those whom justify the PRC as being socialist, due to the charecteristics mentioned in other posts in this thread, would you likewise support the economy of the Italian Social Republic, due to it's so called socialization?

Also there is nothing extreme about pointing out 'mixed economy' is not a mode of production...it's just marxism

Uneven and combined development, do you know it? There is nothing Marxist about saying that economies somehow have to work like the schematics in your head. There is nothing Marxist about insisting that a given economy has to be either socialist, capitalist or feudal - or that its class content is "exclusively" proletarian, bourgeois or aristocratic. It's certainly true that China's economy is predominantly driven by capitalist forces today, but of course, as a whole, it does have a "mixed" economy.

Uneven and combined development, do you know it? There is nothing Marxist about saying that economies somehow have to work like the schematics in your head. There is nothing Marxist about insisting that a given economy has to be either socialist, capitalist or feudal - or that its class content is "exclusively" proletarian, bourgeois or aristocratic. It's certainly true that China's economy is predominantly driven by capitalist forces today, but of course, as a whole, it does have a "mixed" economy.

It's strange you use uneven and combined development to try and prove socialism can exist on some micro level, inside a nation-state as one of its 'special quirks'. Uneven and combined development would evidence that in this situation a chinese nation-state can't construct anything else but state-directed capitalism, which will eventually just be used to secure national interests, not some spin on lenin's 'state capitalism, for the people'. What's worse is, we're not even talking about the question of what communists left alone in isolated revolution should do with a national economy, we're talking about having faith in their conquerors to 'honor' their red flag and give whatever you guys want, probably money and the backing of a state, to people I similarly doubt are communists or represent the interests of workers. More than likely they're other 'progressive nationalists' who stubbornly resist western imperialism.

Regardless the chinese economy is capitalist, that is it extracts surplus value from workers in the form of profits. The chinese people overwhelmingly live off the sale of labor in the form of wages, the standards of which in china are ridiculously low compared to the rest of the labor market, so you cannot claim to be defending any working class 'gains'. China is like any other bourgeois nation-state, it suffers from the same antagonisms between classes and rival imperialists we've seen for a long time. You cannot even argue it is a malformed beacon of revolution for workers and the oppressed, because the state only represents its own interests, that is, national capital, and does nothing to signal otherwise.

Comrades trying to 'reclaim' china are just expressing a demoralized sigh and trying to reconciliate marxism with opportunism.

Last edited by Conscript on 21 Oct 2012, 21:51, edited 1 time in total.

China is a deformed workers' state that is currently evolving into capitalism. It's not fully there yet.

You know, when Trotsky formulated the idea of a workers' state, that is a kind of state that exists 'in between' capitalism and communism, he merely applied it to a certain revolution whose leaders never failed to pursue the most revolutionary platform and succeeded in getting russia's highly conscious yet small proletariat, in an alliance with the poor, disenfranchised peasantry, to abandon the imperialist war and the states fighting it while becoming a beacon for others to do so. China is none of this, and never really was.

Also, capitalism is a world system and we already have it. States are no longer ruled by feudal, land-owning reactionaries, they are ruled by the national bourgeoisie and their interests permeate the chinese state. Not only does china have capitalism, its capital has become strong enough to seriously challenge the traditional hegemony of western imperialists. This is not a 'progressive' trend, this is the final end stage of capitalism, which China is firmly integrated into, acting like it's supposed to. As I said, some comrades engaging the in mental gymnastics to transform this into a 'win' for us are just demoralized and turning to opportunism. In imperialism, there are no winners that belong to 'us' or something.

I'm not trying to sound smug, but maybe look up the difference between a degenerated workers' state and a deformed one?

Quote:

Also, capitalism is a world system and we already have it. States are no longer ruled by feudal, land-owning reactionaries, they are ruled by the national bourgeoisie and their interests permeate the chinese state. Not only does china have capitalism, its capital has become strong enough to seriously challenge the traditional hegemony of western imperialists. This is not a 'progressive' trend, this is the final end stage of capitalism, which China is firmly integrated into, acting like it's supposed to. As I said, some comrades engaging the in mental gymnastics to transform this into a 'win' for us are just demoralized and turning to opportunism. In imperialism, there are no winners that belong to 'us' or something.

I don't disagree. All I ever wanted to express is that it's a huge oversimplification to say that China is a capitalist state like any other.